Sanchita Anil Mehta And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

DDR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 1052 OF 2016 1.Ms. Sanchita Anil Mehta

2. Ms. Divya Navani

3. Mr. Gurjeetsingh Anand

4. Ms. Prarthana Wadhwani ...Applicants Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra (at the instance of Khar Police Station)

2. Mr. Tushar Dheeraj Bansal

...Respondents

...........

Mr. Vivek S. Babar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.R. Shinde, A.P.P. - State.

...........

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J.

AND M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATE : 5th FEBRUARY, 2018.

1/3

ORDER (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, ACTING C.J.) :- The applicants are seeking quashing of C.R.No.177 of 2016 of Khar police station, Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto. The said case is under Sections 447, 342, 506 (2), 323, 504, 109 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case is now pending before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai and it is numbered as PW/1653/2016.

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants/original accused Nos.1 to 4, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 / original complainant and learned APP for the State. 3.

The complainant is present before the Court. He states that he has settled all the disputes with the applicants and he does not wish to pursue the case. He has tendered affidavit as well as photocopy of his Aadhar Card. The affidavit along with photocopy of Aadhar card are taken on record and marked as 'X colly.' for identification. In the affidavit also he has stated that the matter is settled between him and the applicants and he 2/3

does not wish to pursue the case.

4.

Looking to the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and looking to the fact that the complainant does not want to pursue the case, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be achieved by continuing with the prosecution in the said case. In this view of the matter, C.R.No. 177 of 2016 of Khar Police Station and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed.

5.

The application is allowed in above terms.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 3/3